The Doom Confessional Booth

[Fonze]

On ‎8‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 3:25 PM, GarrettChan said:

@FonzeI generally agree with what you said about this. However, it seems "encouraging a player to play in a certain way" and "limiting a player not to play in a certain way" are very similar things to me, and it's very difficult to distinguish.

 

Maybe a more well-known example would be better for me to understand. For example, it seems that Plutonia Map15 encourages the player to play fast, but it really punish the player if he/she plays slow. In this case, are those really different? I usually describe this map as not being new player friendly or so. Any opinions from your side? I just want to hear more about these since I'm not a mapper. Thoughts from a mappers would be interesting to read.

 

Sorry I typed up several responses that all missed the overall point and then forgot to respond at all, heh.

 

An interesting thing to note as a preface to this is that in the end a mapper establishes their own baseline for which to allow others to criticize.

 

I suppose that the appearance of the final product does not always reflect the intentions of the mapper, or as it applies to this example that encouraging vs limiting are perhaps relativistic terms to one-another in the final outcome of a product. To that degree this is geared more towards the map making side of the equation than the retrospective observations of the the player's side of it.

 

A good, easy example would be a fight which is cheesable in some way, like say door-camping or otherwise running away to a safe spot where all pressure comes from one angle. To limit this a mapper could teleport enemies into the cheese spot or otherwise change the geometry, maybe lock-in the player instead of leaving the doorway open to run out of, etc. An encouraging move would be to give some armor in the middle of the room and ample ammo to set the player up for a quick clear of the area, preferably while also cutting off their means of escape. But without taking presentation into account we can only assume that the player will see the armor and ammo, take into account it is for the fight, grab it, than proceed to head to a cheese spot anyway since the encounter, while more forgiving now, is still tough to survive in the middle of the fray. Afterwards they'll still complain it's too hard and cheesable, because they've only seen one version of it, which is their personal baseline to criticize (from). I could prolly word that better but those are my quick thoughts; hopefully they make sense well-enough ;D

 

Also agreed rd; you make a lot of great points.

 

(Can't edit in quotes?)

Quote

rdwpa said:

The frequency of 'players' in this post is something I can't relate to. Well, many (most? maybe even all? although I can't be sure) of my design decisions are guided by or filtered through or even conceived with a particular imagined experience in mind. It's just that, on UV at least, and most of the time (exceptions have shown up in certain community projects or other random experiments), the hypothetical players I use as a benchmark, when I do, are 'players of high skill who are pretty experienced with the type of map I'm making'. 

 

And I'm pretty happy with the way that has turned out. And I'll stand by it. Because difficulty settings exist, and OPs and text files point people towards what they might play, and if not that, dying on loop in the first fight will, and if not that ... well, yeah, too bad. 

 

/that

 

On the first, I am glad you stand by your mapping decisions, as I tend to like them. I stand by mine too as I usually have a goal I've put thought into in mind, for example with my JoM3 map not adding in anything else that could have distracted from the player using rockets. As you said difficulty settings exist for a reason and people should absolutely use them.

 

Quote

Rd said:

I think that presentation and conveyance are design attributes that exist independently of whether anyone but you will actually play the map. I'd still do things like -- completely random example -- use monsters to pull the detached hypothetical consciousness uh, fine, player, in the direction of 'where one should go next' in a massive multi-juncture area where it might otherwise not stand out, or an even more fundamental (and less random) example, design an actual lock-in mechanism for a 'lock-in fight' when I can theoretically just say to myself 'okay I'm not supposed to be able to escape this yet', when I don't have to. Because stuff like that appeals tome independent of its actual real-life practical value.

 

Idk that I can look at such things independently of their real-life, practical value. I mean even in a map for myself if something is possible then it is viable, so even just for me I should squash said cheese, but this is also what I've learned to expect out of any players who play my maps, my JoM3 map being the storybook example again.

 

Quote

rwdpa said:

Discussing a similar (well, similar enough) map start, I brought up the idea of introducing options that give sub-par strategies a non-zero chance of luckboxing (still low enough that one would be best advised to find and use a good strategy instead, but high enough that people could feel like they were trying new things while they were dying). After a bit more thought, idk about that. It isn't feasible for all setups, and it's sure not always an efficient use of mapping time ... especially not when difficulty settings also are a thing, *shrug*. Another observation: crossover appeal of 'harsh' maps is much more about very good design of all the stuff that isn't strictly combat, anyway.

 

Also, what's a shame is that people who werefrustrated on UV didn't step down to HMP.

 

Idk that I agree with luckboxing as a general concept... Idk I'd have to give it more thought, but it seems like it'd be detrimental for a few reasons. One being that it allows players to make it through encounters on the whims of RNGesus, which not only fails to teach them to look for better strategy, it also allows them to continue without toning down the difficulty setting, thinking they'll be fine and prolonging their suffering. Another being that if people don't understand the primary strategy, it'll just make them regard it as luck-based. And yet another being that it also affects the viability and overall presentation of your preferred strategy, as I touched on with my reply to Garrett.

 

Quote

DrWpa said:

Tangential: 

 

I think it's useful to think in terms of what the ammo balance ends up demanding in terms of concrete actions (like, whether you have to two-shot a cyb, or having x amount of plasma rifle shots for a certain tough fight, etc.). For me at least, probably the least interesting way a stingy ammo balance can manifest itself is indeed having to kill mundane stuff efficiently but with no real threat provided you do. Like, if I'm constantly doing things like firing 2 or 3 SSG shots at a lone caco or manc respectively and then switching to the chaingun to finish off the % of ones that survive, and extra shells don't actually make any fights easier ... why not provide more shells. Or infight opportunities -- infighting is ammo lol. I think that 'good' ammo balance in conventional maps that aren't going for ammo deprivation is often 'more than what you actually need' not because of the possibility of missed shots, but because having the green light to fire a rocket into two former human troopers and otheroccasional excesses is often a big +.

 

Yes; 100% yes.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Fonze
v Also 100% yes

[Nine Inch Heels]

I think it's tricky to get "encouraging" design into a game that more or less aims at killing players in some way shape or form. That said, the main difference in limiting or encouraging is that one takes certain approaches out of the equation entirely, while the other offers different solutions to a problem, some of which yielding (usually) better results. That's the thing though, if there is a better result, then the worse result might just as well be considered a "punishment" if you look at it from a different angle, and assuming that the worse result doesn't equal certain death, for that matter.

 

1 hour ago, Fonze said:

Idk that I agree with luckboxing as a general concept... Idk I'd have to give it more thought, but it seems like it'd be detrimental for a few reasons.

I know I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but a side-effect of luck boxing always has been people save-spamming their way through maps. And by savespamming I mean midfight-quicksaves in particular. Granted, if people wanna grind through savestates because eventually that'll get them all the way through, by all means, let them grind ad nauseam, but don't be surprised if the very same people pass the verdicts "poorly tested", "bullshit luckbased encounter design", or "tedious as fuck to play" the next time they write a review for a WAD, or voice their opinions on certain maps/WADs in certain threads, and that in and of itself is enough for me to preferably leave the door for that particular "play-style" (if you can even call it that) closed.

 

To be fair, giving people a fair chance to experiment around a moment without getting "hyper lethaled" within 3 seconds might (it probably will :P) make maps more inviting for people to try, but at the same time it could just as well only be smokescreening the fact that the respective player was in well above their head, depending on the kind of map of course.

 

This reminds me of phml's approach to mapping, which basically offered "advanced" and "less advanced" solutions to certain situations. But even so, at some point during a map the hammer usually drops in some way, and at that point the players need to figure out a decent enough solution no matter what. In phml's case I always perceived the options at hand to be a risk/reward sort of deal (as an integral design philosophy), where the "advanced" solution offered faster UVmaxes but came at the expense of (relative) safety.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Nine Inch Heels

[[McD] James]

Controversial opinion: I don't think there's really anything wrong or cheesy with save-scumming in first-person shooters. If I'm playing a slaughter map, or a game of "spot the pixel representing the perfectly accurate sniper" in Allied Assault, then you can bet that I'll be save-scumming like there's no tomorrow. 

 

What I find kind of strange is that I feel completely different with pretty much every other video game genre. For example, if I'm playing a brutally difficult and long Commander Keen mod, I'll feel kind of empty if I've saved even once in a map after I completed it. The manual for Goodbye Galaxy strongly encourages players to save frequently when playing, but doing so greatly deprives me of any feeling of accomplishment. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Ajora

[Nine Inch Heels]

The thing about save-spamming is that the moment you've designed fights that take place in harder maps in such a way that "luck-boxing" leads to what is perceived as a "viable solution" (because success), you might end up encouraging save-spamming over figuring out how a fight works, for example. That's why I have my doubts about how much designing fights in such a way will "teach" players, for lack of a better expression.

 

Save-spamming also comes with the side effect of having to replay small portions of the very same scenario several times, which for some people feels tedious (repetition is only fun for so long before it gets boring). And when there's a non-zero chance that such a design approach encourages the "tedious solution", then I think it's fair to raise the question if that approach is such a good idea to begin with.

 

That's why...

[baja blast rd.]

Good points, and yet another reason I would never advocate that approach instead of just emphasizing the existence of HMP. 

[seed]

15 hours ago, Ajora said:

Controversial opinion: I don't think there's really anything wrong or cheesy with save-scumming in first-person shooters.

 

I don't find anything wrong with save scumming in any game, but it does depend on what's going on there as well. For me personally, save scumming, as in how everyone else understands it here and not in my own interpretation, is my own way of telling the game "Fuck yourself, go jump off a cliff and die, I had enough", but for that to happen the game has to reach the point of no longer being fun and only frustrating first, and rather than waste time and energy when I could do something more enjoyable I'll just save scum my way through to know I'm done with it and move on.

 

15 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I know I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but a side-effect of luck boxing always has been people save-spamming their way through maps. And by savespamming I mean midfight-quicksaves in particular. Granted, if people wanna grind through savestates because eventually that'll get them all the way through, by all means, let them grind ad nauseam, but don't be surprised if the very same people pass the verdicts "poorly tested", "bullshit luckbased encounter design", or "tedious as fuck to play" the next time they write a review for a WAD, or voice their opinions on certain maps/WADs in certain threads, and that in and of itself is enough for me to preferably leave the door for that particular "play-style" (if you can even call it that) closed.

 

I'm probably attracting a can of worms now too, but I personally wouldn't take such "criticism" serious (is there a good reason to do otherwise anyway?). Granted, as someone who save scums his way through on rare occasions you can count you'll never see me doing that, or at least not consciously. I'm trying to see how it would be enjoyable for someone else and whether my lack of skill is the problem there first, and should that be the case then I'd rather just shut up than piss everyone off.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Agent6
I actually meant "can count" NOT "can't count" there.

[Pirx]

On 8/24/2018 at 11:11 PM, Agent6 said:

 

True. Honestly I don't mind more cryptic levels in a megawad, it only bothers me when there's too many of them and they also go to the extreme, that's just completely unfun for me.

 

This. It often spoils my fun with a map when i'm repeatedly running through hallways full of stuff I've killed already, wondering where to go next. This is subjectively more tedious than grinding down a large number of enemies for example, because at least I'm doing something when I'm grinding them down. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Pirx

[Cruduxy Pegg]

I was looking around hexen's source code for silly interactions and then found this in the damage function:

case MT_BISH_FX:
				// Bishops are just too nasty
				damage >>= 1;
				break;

Basically if someone is damaged by a bishop's projectile the damage is cut in half. Seriously raven? 1 damage on projectiles AND that to lower it even more? This is before armor is even involved too! No wonder they hit like a wet noodle and make afrit's damage look strong. I always wondered if someone rage nerfed them before release and this almost confirms it

 

case MT_FSWORD_MISSILE:
				if(target->player)
				{
					damage -= damage>>2;
				}

Fighter's sword is so strong in deathmatch hides bloodscourge behind his back better nerf it in that mode! 

 

if(source && (source->player) &&
			(source->player->readyweapon == WP_FOURTH))
		{
			// Always extreme death from fourth weapon
			target->health = -5000;
		}

Ultimate weapons set target hp to negative 5k on kill, weird way to force Xdeaths but wow, That's so goddamn strong! 4th weapons are almost telefrag tier. Take that BFG!

 

 

[[McD] James]

12 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Save-spamming also comes with the side effect of having to replay small portions of the very same scenario several times, which for some people feels tedious (repetition is only fun for so long before it gets boring). And when there's a non-zero chance that such a design approach encourages the "tedious solution", then I think it's fair to raise the question if that approach is such a good idea to begin with.

1

 

This part I don't quite get. Let's say I set a save marker that's well before a highly difficult point in a map. By repeatedly reloading from that point upon death, I'd be replaying several sections over and over again, whereas if I'm saving with a higher level of frequency, I wouldn't be replaying the same sections over and over again. This becomes further exacerbated if I'm not saving at all. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Ajora

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 hour ago, Ajora said:

whereas if I'm saving with a higher level of frequency, I wouldn't be replaying the same sections over and over again.

Have fun saving yourself into a corner eventually, I guess

 

EDIT: The point I am trying to make is with regards to design that gives people a chance to luck their way through fights, rather then solving them

Edited August 27, 2018 by Nine Inch Heels

[[McD] James]

4 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Have fun saving yourself into a corner eventually, I guess

 

Never happened before. Just have multiple saves at multiple points and then go back a bit if I'm trapped in an unwinnable situation. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Ajora

[Fonze]

6 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

EDIT: The point I am trying to make is with regards to design that gives people a chance to luck their way through fights, rather then solving them

 

^ this ajora

 

Which also fits right into the context already provided by the earlier discussion, wrt luckboxing one's way through encounters through the use of save-scumming; not understanding the fundamental strategy of using a doorknob and banging your way through a closed door will always be way more tedious than learning to use said doorknob correctly, no matter how many times you save. In fact it could easily be argued that repeating 5 seconds over and over again in a futile attempt to proceed after a slight glimmer of hope from luckboxing is more tedious than starting over, or as you said, loading an earlier save.

[seed]

26 minutes ago, Fonze said:

not understanding the fundamental strategy of using a doorknob and banging your way through a closed door will always be way more tedious than learning to use said doorknob correctly, no matter how many times you save.

 

This is so correct.

 

I've been there myself, and truly until you learn how the area/trap/encounter/whatever actually works no matter how much you save scum your way through it's never going to be fun for yourself but frustrating and rage-inducing. When you're missing a key element of the puzzle all pieces fall, to say so (yeah I just made that up :v ).

Edited August 27, 2018 by Agent6

[[McD] James]

25 minutes ago, Agent6 said:

 

This is so correct.

 

I've been there myself, and truly until you learn how the area/trap/encounter/whatever actually works no matter how much you save scum your way through it's never going to be fun for yourself but frustrating and rage-inducing. When you're missing a key element of the puzzle all pieces fall, to say so (yeah I just made that up :v ).

 

I never get angry or frustrated when I play Doom. If the map that I'm playing is extremely difficult or cheap, then I might get a little bored after a while, but never unhinged. I play first-person shooters primarily to have fun and relax. If I feel like testing myself with an unforgiving challenge, then I'm more likely to play something along the lines of Makaimura or Image Fight.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Ajora

[Pirx]

3 hours ago, Fonze said:

 

not understanding the fundamental strategy of using a doorknob and banging your way through a closed door will always be way more tedious than learning to use said doorknob correctly

 

 Signature-worthy if we had sigs here.

[yakfak]

doom confession number 784635: starting to resent megawads cos I'll never get the momentum to make one, and the sidebar is always full of reviews of classic megawads that already have a squillion reviews instead of weird single levels which eat shit approx four days after they're released

[seed]

17 hours ago, Ajora said:

I never get angry or frustrated when I play Doom. If the map that I'm playing is extremely difficult or cheap, then I might get a little bored after a while, but never unhinged. I play first-person shooters primarily to have fun and relax. If I feel like testing myself with an unforgiving challenge, then I'm more likely to play something along the lines of Makaimura or Image Fight.

 

Eh, that's just one of my problems, I'm hot-tempered.

[NoXion]

I still haven't finished Doom (2016), although recently I've been working on that.

[kb1]

On 8/23/2018 at 2:32 PM, Guy Montag said:

It took me over an hour to finish map 22 'Tenements' in Doom2. Finish screen just said 'Time Sucks'

Time does suck.

[kb1]

On 8/24/2018 at 5:07 AM, Phobus said:

..spunking the SSG off at individual imps and zombies, he's going to run out of ammo. That is poor player skill...

 

On 8/24/2018 at 1:41 PM, Fonze said:

...maybe the map, while fitting your vision,...at least isn't more fun than it is tedious, frustrating, etc...Sure some amount of ammo/supplies management should be present, but if that is one of the main ways your map manifests its difficulty then it's gonna get real tedious real fast...

Doom Confession #1, and a comment on these two viewpoints go hand in hand here. First the confession(s):

I'm generally a less-than-average player (giving myself some credit). Also, I like having some extra ammo to waste about. I'm playing out a fantasy, and in my dream, I brought lots of ammo. I mean, hell, I can carry out 6 heavy-ass weapons, a chainsaw, and run at 35 mph. Why not be able to carry around a bit of ammo?

 

Still confessing:

Now, I don't just cut down trees with the bullets - I try to go easy. But, I'm playing a game because games are fun, and, though I can see how some people would enjoy trying to get through it with minimal ammo, and that that is a challenge and all that, to me, that's just not the type of fun I want out of Doom.

 

For me, jumping in like a maniac and plowing through the masses is what's fun. It's fun if I can jump in like a crazed asshole, and come through the other side still breathing. Running out of ammo, it can be fun that I have to go find where the next stockpile is - that creates a type of danger, especially if it's behind those monsters up ahead! But to find that there's just no ammo up ahead, and, boo-hoo, I spent my share, tough shit? I'm not seeing it, personally.

 

It would be REALLY NICE if there was a mathematical, scientific way to compare and contrast a host of very specific properties and aspects of a Doom map, where a prospective player could look for the "ammo stinginess" category, and say "oooh, 92%, I stop enjoying a map that's over 85% ammo-stingy." But this is not easy to build. So, the simple answer is "different strokes."

 

But, now:

Doom confession #2:

I am not down with "Map too hard? Drop down to HMP." Sure, I know it makes sense. It does. But, here's the problem:

That HMP map is not the same map that was just beating me up. It's some different thing that looks a lot like the UV map, but it ain't. And I have this imaginary view of how maps should play out, and if you don't make it my way, it's going to be a less-than-perfect experience for me. I don't want there to be 3 maps in one, with different monster choices, chosen differently by different authors, with differing amounts of ammo stinginess. I want one map to remember - one map that everyone agrees upon to be the map with that chosen name, in that PWAD.

 

Again: I know it ain't right. I know it doesn't make sense. I know it's impractical to ever expect to get exactly what I want. (Then again, sometimes I do...go figure). I'm being serious, even though I know it's somewhat funny, and it's ridiculous of me to expect.

 

That last 5 maps I played, I got through on UV. Yay, I'm a UV guy! Or, am I?

 

Stated a bit more 'scientifically': What it means to be a UV map is not well defined enough (other than "bad-ass" mode), between authors, or even levels by the same author. But you have to start playing from somewhere. And, I don't want to experience a map at UV, and then have to re-play it, expecting to see a baron behind Door #1, yet, this time it's an imp. That's too jarring a shock for my senses. Can anyone relate with that?

 

 

[damerell]

11 hours ago, kb1 said:

 Can anyone relate with that?

I feel much the same, but... you say you're a "less than average player", but I really am. I might have been playing in 1993, but I haven't been playing steadily since 1993... and I detest mid-level saving. I don't have a prayer of doing most modern maps on UV, and I kind of have to suck it up. I did Sunlust on ITYTD... well, until MAP29, when I was fed up.

[kb1]

6 hours ago, damerell said:

I feel much the same, but... you say you're a "less than average player", but I really am. I might have been playing in 1993, but I haven't been playing steadily since 1993... and I detest mid-level saving. I don't have a prayer of doing most modern maps on UV, and I kind of have to suck it up. I did Sunlust on ITYTD... well, until MAP29, when I was fed up.

My thoughts also work if you were to always pick, say, HMP, or even ITYTD consistently. That wouldn't be too bad...except that you cannot describe you're experience with others, and be comparing apples to apples.

 

I'm not sure that that is it, either. I think it's the immersion factor. It's no longer me, DoomGuy, going to some place to battle demons. Instead, it's merely a game, with difficulty settings. I always liked that Doom just starts, with no instructions, and no settings (unless you dig for them). I don't know - I'm probably just rambling - nothing to see here...

[xdarkmasterx]

when i first played doom 3 i had a crush on the shotgun z sec and the morgue zombie XD

 

but not any more, now the shotgunner **** me off on nightmare >:(

[elend]

I am sick and tired of D_RUNNIN

[Deleted_Account]

1 hour ago, elend said:

I am sick and tired of D_RUNNIN

DUNNUN DUN DUN DUNNUN DUN DUN DUN DAH.

[Koko Ricky]

Might have mentioned this already but I still can't find all three keys on The Citadel. Considering how easily I navigate nearly every other map in Doom 2, I'm going to call bad design on that one.

[mrthejoshmon]

1 hour ago, GoatLord said:

Might have mentioned this already but I still can't find all three keys on The Citadel. Considering how easily I navigate nearly every other map in Doom 2, I'm going to call bad design on that one.

Yeah, The Citadel legitimately used to end my playthroughs because I couldn't figure it out, I actually believed that the one room where you had to shoot the wall to get out was actually a fail state you could enter (I was on PSX Doom, The Marshes actually had a fail state room where you were guaranteed to die so I assumed that The Citadel was the same), that is an example of the bad map design that plagues that map.

Edited August 30, 2018 by mrthejoshmon

[Teivman]

97% of the Wads/Mods/TC's that I make never see the light of day.

[Koko Ricky]

44 minutes ago, mrthejoshmon said:

Yeah, The Citadel legitimately used to end my playthroughs because I couldn't figure it out, I actually believed that the one room where you had to shoot the wall to get out was actually a fail state you could enter (I was on PSX Doom, The Marshes actually had a fail state room where you were guaranteed to die so I assumed that The Citadel was the same), that is an example of the bad map design that plagues that map.

It's such an odd map. The main indoor area after the start is a clusterfuck of non-intuitive ideas. I've so far refused to look up a walk through video, but after all this time I haven't fully figured it out. It might be worse than The Chasm for how covoluted it is.

[seed]

4 hours ago, GoatLord said:

Might have mentioned this already but I still can't find all three keys on The Citadel. Considering how easily I navigate nearly every other map in Doom 2, I'm going to call bad design on that one.

 

Bout that, I still don't know how to reach the red skull in TNT's Deepest Reaches, though I managed to find it by accident in the PSX version. Needless to say I don't remember how I did it.